“Oxymoronic,” “harmful,” not “actionable” enough: Students and community members voice criticisms of SJP resolution

Illustration by Jenna Tibby

A ballot resolution calling for the Associated Students (A.S.) to recognize “ethnic cleansing,” “apartheid” and “collective punishment” by Israel in Gaza is currently being voted on by the student body at Santa Monica College (SMC). Criticisms have already poured in from students and campus groups about the resolution, both for content and accessibility.

The resolution, sponsored by Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), vows to “combat antisemitism and ethno-nationalism in all its forms.” A.S. Vice President Michael Helfand has issues with this particular provision.

“Jews consider themselves an ethno-religion, meaning that we do not just keep a religion and that’s where we find commonality. We also share heritage and history and ethnicity,” said Helfand. “So when this resolution seeks to both combat antisemitism and ethno-nationalism, which is ingrained into the Jewish identity, I find it to be oxymoronic, and harmful for the Jewish students on campus.”

The ballot measure is modelled almost entirely off of a resolution passed by the city of Richmond in October 2023, shortly after the Oct. 7, 2023 attacks.

Helfand argues that at that time, the quick adoption of an anti-ethno-nationalism perspective in the city of Richmond inextricably linked with anti-Zionism. Zionism, he believes, is commonly mistaken for an embrace of the Israeli government.

“Zionism by definition, and this is how almost all Jews hold in their heart, Zionism, it is the Jewish people’s longing for a homeland in the state of Israel, point blank,” said Helfand.

In addition, Helfand said, the resolution is “poorly worded and does not fit what the current situation is in Gaza. It calls for a ceasefire, we have a ceasefire, we’ve come to an agreement.”

“So I urge students not to vote on this resolution, and understand what is going on with the resolution,” said Helfand.

The resolution was initially proposed in June 2024. Per the A.S. Constitution, all valid legislative initiatives must be passed by A.S. or sent to a student-body vote. The latter option was selected in a 10-3 vote at a Board of Directors meeting on Sept. 23, 2024.

Before this decision was made, members of SJP presented to A.S. to make a case for the resolution’s immediate passage. Club leader Marjah Nee stated that passing the resolution would be a “pro human rights” action, and that sending the resolution to general elections was equivalent to “silenc(ing)” it.

“Their argument was that if we didn’t pass it, then we would be directly opposing their views,” said Helfand, recalling the presentation. “I felt that was misguided. As I stated in the meeting myself, it’s not up to us whether we should accept something like this, as it should be for the students to decide.”

At the Sept. 16 meeting, Nee specifically addressed Helfand, stating that though Nee believed Helfand opposed the petition, he was thankful Helfand would distinguish between antisemitism and criticisms of Israel.

Six months later, on April 2, Helfand expressed the same gratitude towards SJP for including distinction in the initiative: “I do appreciate that the resolution did stipulate between antisemitism and objections to the Israeli government. That is a clear distinction that I think is important to make.”

On March 31, the day polls opened, Chabad at SMC released a “Statement regarding anti-Israel measure” signed by Rabbi Eli Levitansky and Mirel Levitansky that describes the resolution as “a veil for antisemitism.”

“Instead of fostering unity, it deepens divisions among students and faculty at SMC, using anti-Israel rhetoric as a pretext for antisemitism,” the statement reads.

The statement also alleges the resolution is factually inaccurate and intends to “weaken and discourage” Jewish students.

“Let’s counter this negativity by bringing more goodness into the world - through performing a Miztvah, supporting a fellow student, and spreading acts of kindness,” the statement reads.

Aside from concerns of antisemitism, other students have complained about the voting site, which simply asks “Do you support the student submitted legislative initiative?” As of April 3, the question embeds a direct link to the resolution for voters to peruse its contents; on the first day of voting, however, no such direct link was embedded.

Another student expressing criticisms is Indigenous Scholars president Sequoyah Thiessen, who says she “supports SJP wholeheartedly” but has a problem with the resolution’s lack of actionability.

“I worry about making our college a target without actually providing any tangible solutions,” Thiessen said. “I want tangible solutions and not just performative words, because acknowledging that a genocide is going on is the bare minimum.”

Thiessen also shares Helfand’s critique that the resolution is outdated.

“I also think that it’s unfortunate that it was pushed off for so long, because it almost needs to be rewritten, because the circumstances are completely different now,” she said.

“I’m just saying, sometimes you try to get justice and it goes the other way. And you actually become more subjugated afterwards,” said Thiessen. “And so I worry that something like that could happen with the resolution because of the way that it was written.”

Thiessen also wishes the resolution addressed free speech on campuses and properly cited its Richmond origins.

Still, Thiessen hopes the resolution passes: “I really hope it goes through. I just wish that, you know, I just wish I could go in and edit the doc, that’s all.”

And even if the resolution passes, said Helfand, “I don’t think that in the grand scheme of things it will tarnish SMC’s and the Associated Students’ reputation as a trusted body.”

SJP has yet to release a statement or public comment on the resolution, and did not immediately respond to the Corsair’s request for comment.

Polls close at 11:59 p.m. on April 3. Voting instructions are on the Associated Students Elections website.